Internet Policy Considerations

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 05:17:12 PST, our Brother wrote:

>I don’t understand why this is considered a complex issue. 
> If I want to go downtown and enter a pornography shop I can.  
> If I want to go to the local bar I can. If I want to go anywhere that would be a detriment 
> to a Christian walk I am able to do so. I choose not to because I want to live for the Lord!  
> If I wanted to visit a site on the Internet that is ungodly and immoral I can ... 
> again I choose not to because I want to live for God.  There is a point that the UPC must 
> realize that it cannot police the morals and intentions of the Saints of God.  They must 
> live for God because they choose to and the Holy Ghost leads them .. not because a 
> manual says they shouldn’t do so. If the availability of access to ungodly material on the 
> Internet is  a problem to an individual then they should stay off of it. 
> If they begin to spend too much time on it; 
> if they begin to be addicted to it; then they should get off of it.

The subject of internet involvement by the church and by individual
saints has been raised and it appears that it will now be examined in
depth, so let me address this. What you read below is written from the
standpoint of a minister who has been led by God to spend many. many
hours over the last six years examining the potential of this medium.
As a bi-vocational development engineer, involved in the area of
microcomputers and application of "personal" computers since 1974 I
have a professional interest. As a pastor and minister of the gospel,
I have a heartfelt interest and experience.

These are my personal opinions, born of experience, but I am sharing
them in these comments with you, and with UPCI officials who may be
interested.
-------
Answering our Brother concerning the general spectrum of Internet
issues:

The complexity is not over the issue of personally morality.  All
would agree with you that temperance is finally required in every
life, and of course, we do not teach that you are saved by the power
of God working in a manual, but rather by the transforming power
renewing the spirit of your mind and working in your heart to overcome
the world through faith.

As lifestyles change, and the society changes, it is incumbent upon
godly men and women to make policy decisions concerning how they would
interact with media.

I am glad, for example, that I do not ever remember a UPCI pastor
starting up a big television ministry, getting some flakey "new
revelations" and casting aspersions over the message we preach, and
the life we live, by his own broadcast bad example.
I believe the decisions made years ago regarding the use of TV were
correct, for many reasons.

We have had, on the internet for a number of years and before that in
other electronic media, several individuals who do very significant
damage to the reputation of Oneness people (Yes I know, God can take
care of it, but does God tie our shoes for us ?) Several ministers in
significant places told me that my practice of occasionally following
one with a disclaimer indicating that he is not associated with the
UPCI was a good practice. In fact, they did not know WHAT to do, or
whether there was much one could do. If we are extensively involved
with the internet, MANY people will claim that they are UPCI
affiliated, preaching all sorts of things.

Also, there is a man and perhaps others like him, who have in the past
made extensive slanderous charges against the UPCI, who has just
appeared recently on the net, the WWW and in IRC. Several years ago he
published a number of papers and distributed them across the country,
charging UPCI officials with all sorts of things. He was wildly
rebellious in his assertions, and sought to impose his judgment where
the administrative, judicial and spiritual channels of communication
did not allow. God did not bless his effort, and he ran out of money
to print the papers. He eventually lost his fellowship credentials,
and his means to spread his message. However, the internet allows him
to do so each month for the price of three meals at MacDonalds, and
reach the WORLD with this material. Encountering them recently, it
became clear that his spirit is the same, if not worse, than before.

I have encountered these people an IRC setting and others like them in
a mail list setting, and I have done what I felt the Holy Ghost has
led me to do in publicly countering their slanders and claims.
However, I do NOT really know if I am doing anyone a service. I may
very well not be handling it in a manner that the UPCI would
appreciate. I try to do what is best, in conscience and in the Holy
Ghost, but I am not authorized to represent anyone or anything, except
the gospel. It is precisely because of a lack of policy and absence of
presence that this becomes a problem.

Suppose we did have a policy... There would still be loose cannons
like me who felt a need to "stand up for truth", but would come pretty
close to figuratively shedding blood, if not endangering any local
efforts underway to rebuild bridges with people such as this one
mentioned above. These things would have to be handled. Could they be
handled correctly? That is the subject of discussion.

If these matters are handled right, it will be well, but as you can
see this IS complex. An extensive church presence on the net could
actually destroy several of the components of organizational power,
namely protection and identification. It might also harm the
fellowship aspect in the long run.

In another issue, here I am on the internet (and other ministers, of
course), interacting with saints who are being taught by other pastors
and whose souls are the responsibility and concern of others. You must
know by now, I am not a compromiser, and am sometimes less that
perfect in what I say. I could very likely be causing someone else a
serious problem. 

We are not talking about reading books here. We are talking about
interactive, live communication (especially on IRC). Can you imagine a
pastor’s justified reaction if I was to pick up the phone and call
saints in his congregation at random and start talking spiritual
things with them?

What if it was a seminar type setting? Would the pastor be interested
in what seminar you were attending regularly, and who was teaching
there ? Anyone can become a teacher in this medium. There is no
appearance of authority, except what one  is willing to establish with
the greatest patience and the utmost credibility. This takes a LOT of
time, but in the mean time, wolves and radicals come and go. In the
end, the ‘teachers" have no authorization. A fellowship card cannot be
checked. Advise and counsel is hard from all alike. It is as one man
said a "Mars Hill", not the most suitable environment for spiritual
health, and certainly not pastorable. 

Before endorsing fellowship activities through the net, the
organizations will certainly want to consider this last aspect again.
It is NOT pastorable. Cyber-space lacks substantial walls, or limits
in time and space. Last years comments can become alive in a moment.
Out of context quotations in the presence of the innocent are a daily
event. false identities are standard fare on the net. The net is great
for communicating truth, but it must have been rejoiced over by the
powers of deception.

Let me return to the matter of dealing with Apostolics in personal
communication on the net. Today, most likely, I could be charged with
considerable violations of ministerial ethics. Probably, I am not
because it is not reasonable at this time, as no policies exist. Most
people would probably consent that I have remained  balanced,
biblical, and ethical in the substance of the thongs I write. But that
is a fact that cannot be counted on. I or someone else tomorrow could
get right in the middle of business where the did not belong, and
cause great personal damage, all in the appearance of
irresponsibility. We must raise the consciousness of the NET such that
people understand that the communication that takes place there is
more personal than a phone call, and more likely to impart significant
communication.

I am aware of Apostolic people who have involved in sexual
"cyber-affairs" through the internet. That is, they established
suggestive and perhaps real sexual encounters, assuming the safety of
"only looking at a screen", whereas they were in fact entertaining
fantasies and spiritually touching the individual they were
communicating with. Once such encounter that I know of advanced to a
personal meeting in the individuals own home, and resulted in actual
adultery to the best of my knowledge. We do know that the adultery
actually occurred from the time that the imaginations began to develop
through the internet (Matt 5:28).

The psychology of the net is interesting. What is the net? Perhaps
nothing more than a means to conditionally foreshorten the experience
of time and space. The quip of one pundit rings ironically true: He
said "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so you don’t have
to experience it".

On the net there are various technologies implemented through
ingenious software to accomplish communication, and enhance experience
of information or the thoughts and perhaps the spirits which
individuals bring to the public domain. These technologies, mail and
its relations, chat, web, etc…  can be moderated or adjusted to suit
needs to users to some extent. Others will be created as time goes on.
Some technologies bring a character or set of group rules with them.
Some bear looking into.

If we want to compare telephone and internet, which seems valid, I am
advocating making a real comparison. On one hand, we say it is like
the telephone, and I agree that it is a communication technology. Lets
look at some standards of telephone usage that we observe but may have
neglected to consider:

When we pick up a telephone our voices represent us. We must deliver a
message which we will stand behind, and will be accountable for what
we say. It is conventional to expect the calling party to identify
himself, and to state his business, and give the recipient choice as
to whether to continue. Violating these manners is considered rude.
This idea is inborn, but it is a standard we observe. 

On the net, on the other hand, the interface of meeting of the
identities (the persona), is utterly bypassed. It is not strange to
receive "flames" by mail or in direct communication from people who
would never engage in such activity by regular mail, or on the
telephone. Similarly, when men and women communicate in the internet
domain, it is by a very different presumed standard than is used on
the telephone. Often personal conversation can arise in very little
time, whereas the persona and interpersonal limitations of "real time"
face-to-face communication would prevent it. We would be very
concerned about the freedom and intimacy of such encounters, which as
I said earlier, may sometimes venture into the realm of adultery
without anyone suspecting it.

There is something inherent in the medium as developed that is
Hellenistic in philosophy. On the phone, and in mail, we use our real
names. Our genders are not in question. In the "net world", there
seems little significance to real identity. The landscape is one where
it is assume that there is a Platonic meeting of minds, of free
floating ideas. Our personal identities are moved from the forefront
and the ideal of free communication is assumed. 

I find this idea to be fraudulent and perhaps even devilish. We are
not without gender, and our humanity is not unencumbered with deep and
significant elements of relationship. There is a reason why God gave
us inhibitions in dealing with people of the opposite sex, or even why
there are very careful and difficult emotions that manifest in face to
face meetings. When we circumvent these aspects of humanity, it cannot
be regarded as harmless. Furthermore, as a minister of the gospel,
even as a Christian, the things I say depend upon my identity and my
lifestyle. The words I speak can be invalidated or branded powerful
depending on the evident effect in me who has believed them. As the
word is made flesh in me, I am the initial certification of my message
to the innocent ears. We are, as the Apostle wrote, a living epistle.
It is for this reason that the Apostles hazarded their lives and not
just their words. What is the effect of the Apostolic message brought
to the Hellenistic stage? Maybe Acts 17 leaves that unclear, but we
read of no great church of Athens in history. While certain named
individual believed, verse 33 implies that Paul departed with
frustration from there. Some have blamed this on Paul’s approach, but
we, particularly of more contentious areas of the world, know the
fault of the setting also.

In some sense, removing the identity and force of life from the
communicant, some internet technologies can be more like a powerful
psychiatric tool, rather than a telephone. 

Many Apostolic business people today use internet of necessity and are
familiar with these technologies. This will hardly reduce. In fact, it
will soon be rare to find anyone without net experience. The
globalists will soon have the benefits of the internet sold to every
public school system. Students will be required to access information
by it. Cultural conditioning and social programming will accompany the
convenience of communication to promote internet as an essential
element of every life. It is impossible to imagine an effective church
which is not equipped to deal with this. I should hope any resolution
is well explained and followed up.

The point I am making is that these and other issues will be
considered. If they are considered negligently, and decisions fail to
address the above issues and others, such as confidentiality of
communication with foreign missionaries ...etc, the consequences will
have a great impact. 

It is my opinion that this arena is far more dangerous and far more
powerful than Television (which is fading from significance by the
way). We have not begun to imagine the technological impact that the
net will make upon the ordinary life in the next few years. These
things will make TV look like a toy, and yet we will not have policy
to deal with it, because we still do not consider the net to be as
REAL as the telephone. Things we would not allow in our home because
we could understand the monolithic TV as a negative, will (not can,
but will) be in "our" homes with the net in short months. The parking
lots of the CompuUSA and other computer stores are flooded Saturdays
and Sundays. They are replacing the Home Improvement stores as places
of weekend worship here where we live. Bill Gates and others see the
revolution and are busy. I think that we had better too.

I use the net because I believe it is the only way into a large,
perhaps majority, segment of the homes of the USA, and a means for me
to reach around the world. If you have the same desire and burning
knowledge of that commission, I commend you. But this does not
minimize the considerations we have briefly touched above. (I must be
honest to add, I also use it because I am a Home Missionary in an area
of the country where presently response is very difficult to find, and
I am sometimes frustrated. I do this because I have not been told not
to, and reaching someone is satisfying to my spiritual inclination.
However, I realize that unless we vastly develop the ministry and are
able to maximize contacts and make connections with reliablity,
continued effort will be in vain)

Some problems seem to have visible solutions. For example, the issue
of credentials can be solved through certification software, that
would allow a unseen key possessed by a minister to be checked for
validity, rather like a signed fellowship card. (These thoughts will
take people back to the days of early organization, but in a time when
it seems that people are asked to implicitly trust or be stigmatized
as divisive.) A limited official WWW presence might make needed
disclaimers.

As I said earlier, I would move to table an issue like that before
voting negatively for internet presence, but if forced at this time, I
would have to vote negatively for large scale involvement, knowing
that we do not at present have the savvy to move forward here.

Sincerely Yours, 


Rev. MW Bassett
Milford, CT